----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer number: 029
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please place an "X" in the appropriate category for each evaluation. Use
an "X" between two categories if you cannot decide between them.
Low Fair High Very High Don't Know
Not Applicable
Originality: (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Relevance to Conference: ( ) ( ) ( ) (x) ( )
Intelligibility to
general SAB audience: ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Clarity of Presentation: ( ) ( ) (x) ( ) ( )
Significance of Results: (x) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
Technical Soundness: ( ) (x) ( ) ( ) ( )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: Poor Excellent
( )1 ( )2 ( )3 (x)4 ( )5 ( )6 ( )7 ( )8 ( )9 ( )10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIFIC COMMENTS TO AUTHOR(S):
(Including suggestions for improving the paper.)
The paper adds very little to the 1974 classic, Varela et al.'s seminal
computer model of autopoiesis, and it adds next to nothing to the knowledge
stand represented by the papers written about the topic since then. Does not
even cite relevant literature, except for a few arbitrary items; instead it
contains lots of pseudo-technical self-advertisement of the first author. The
work as such is all right at a student level or as a rehearsal; it's an
analysis of a smallish toy program's source code plus commentaries on
versions, and on why they do or don't work, the way they do or they don't.
This kind of paper does not contribute to the understanding or to the
development of autopoiesis; it is difficult to see why FV thinks otherwise, or
else he would not have joined as a second author, which he presumably (or I
rather say obviously) did on the invitation of the
first author.
============================================================================